locomotivefandomcom-20200222-history
Locomotive Wiki:Civility
Civility must be maintained by users at all times. Locomotive Wiki does not prohibit debate, nor certain forms of arguments for that matter. However, this policy is here to outline how there is a difference between making a strong argument to build consensus behind and submitting a weak, uncivil attack. The definition of civil, although relative, will be defined for all intents and purposes in this page with regard to the Wiki. Our purpose here is to build content, not insult eachother. Unless a user refuses to remain calm, this policy shall most rarely be enforced with blocks. Instead, view this page as the expected conduct of all users on this wiki; the dos and don'ts of criticizing other users. By editing, or otherwise contributing to, Locomotive Wiki you agree to Wikia's Terms of Use, in particular the "User Conduct" section. Avoiding incivility Although there are a multitude of ways a user can be uncivil, there are only a few easy steps to avoid being uncivil: *Use the edit summary to explain an edit, and why you think it was needed. Do not use the edit summary to talk about what somebody else has done. Simply state what you have done. *Use the talk page if you think your edit is likely to cause debate. *Try not to take Locomotive Wiki too seriously. Everything can be undone, so don't panic! *Do not be condescending, no matter how big a mistake the other person has made. We have all be there. *Most importantly, do not forget that you are dealing with other people. We are not bots, not yet anyway. No personal attacks A personal attack is any comment on a user or their behavior, as opposed to commenting on their content or a specific revision they made. The most basic principle of wiki-civility, is not to attack another user personally. If you dislike an idea/a /an article (etc.) of theirs, explain why in a respectful manner. If somebody is attacking you, you are under no obligation to reply. You may ask an administrator to have a word with them, especially if they continue to message you. It is understood that what a user may say to you in this situation will most likely be very offensive. However, replying in kind is the absolute worst thing you could do. Not only is it likely that they will get even worse afterwards, but it also undermines your position, and leads to you becoming equally disruptive to other users. It should be noted that this wiki subscribes to Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies, and your say in whatever matter is at hand will be void if you perform any action that might be considered to fall under that rule's purview. Types of incivility Users should always conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. The following list makes no attempt to cover every uncivil thing a user may say to another, but rather highlights the more serious cases. *Using any attribute or affiliation of another user against them. *Name calling, basic insults. It may be childish, but it has more of an effect than most of us would hope. *Making slurs against a minority. Whether this be directed or indirect, it counts as a personal attack. *Threats. These can be of any type. Death threats are most serious and in many situations will result in a block. *Harassment or stalking. Continually posting messages to another user, whether they be derogatory, offensive or not is harassment—especially if they ask you to stop. Replying to every post one particular user, or every post of several different users, is tantamount to stalking. *Attack pages. Whether on this wiki or not. *Ungrounded accusations. You may accuse somebody of doing something very wrong on the wiki, but it is much better if you ask them why they did a particular action and how you feel it is not a good idea. Otherwise you will need strong evidence; a link would suffice. Any accusations not relating to wiki editing are not welcome. *Making judgmental edit summaries on previous revisions. Dealing with uncivil users An uncivil user is likely to upset you. It is important to note that if a user is being uncivil, being uncivil back is just as bad. Whatever the current situation is, you should always attempt to explain yourself in a calm manner. Although you should be very careful doing so, you could explain what it was that offended you; the other user may not know they have appeared uncivil. If you have told them exactly what happened, and how they misunderstood, but they still are being uncivil: walk away. Nobody is keeping you in the argument. As quickly as you join a conversation, you may leave one. If you decide that you may have been, or have seen by others to be, uncivil, apologize. It doesn't hurt you, and it may evaporate the argument. However, if you are apologizing to an upset user, consider your apology carefully. Avoid phrasing such as I'm sorry if I upset you, but... Using words such as if, but, just, only and maybe is dangerous due to their diminishing effect. The other person may think you are dismissing their pain, and further react. (If that happens apologize again, and try to end the conversation citing that the pair of us talking together is not working today, or similar.) In a tense situation, be open with suggestions even if you don't like the suggestion. That applies to somebody explaining how you started it!, even if you thought they did, and suggestions on content equally. With the latter, especially if you dislike what they are suggesting not merely how they are suggesting it, explore the suggestion fully. Take their mind off the argument, by presenting your (good) alternative(s). Giving alternatives is a far better way of dealing with an uncivil user who thinks you are out to tear their work to pieces!, than pointing out how their idea is flawed. Again, be careful, they could just see you as being stubborn. If there are no alternatives and it's just one of those obviously stupid ideas that the person suggesting it cannot see this in, consider constructing a hypothetical situation where it's obvious that the idea would fail. Try to avoid spelling out the that's where it falls apart completely bit, which may get you into even more trouble with them. If you cannot think of any alternatives, if you cannot think of a hypothetical then maybe the idea is not such a bad one after all? In reality, predicting accurately when somebody will get the wrong end of the stick on the internet is improbable. So you are probably thinking yeah, they could misinterpret my pleasantness for incivility, but not necessarily. Not always. You might misinterpret their incivility for pleasantness. Especially if they don't say much, don't use trigger words, or misuse punctuation, e.g. fail to add an exclamation point. Although rare, this can have dire consequences; the most obvious consequence of this situation being they feel their grievance is being ignored. Their next message may be a full-blown, insulting rant from out of the blue. If you recognize that your misinterpreting of their first post is the issue... good luck. Stay calm, and just say you are ever so sorry that you misread their post—it does not matter how badly written it was, you should apologize and certainly do not attempt to explain how they should've written their post better. On the other hand, if they are being uncivil because one of your edits was less than accurate, or similar, you might like to ignore their hostility and agree. Even change it back if they have not already done so. Only start using the methods explained in this policy if they remain uncivil afterwards. No, that does not mean a snide that's right, you should've known better! from them before they stop messaging you, rather if they continue to remain agitated in another post. The easiest way to avoid this is not to reply to their last comment—let them have the last word. Don't just let them win This may seem like a contradictory statement, but aggressive users, especially those with idiotic ideas as well, should not have extra influence over what is written in the articles. Be careful when instigating this attitude, you may find you are seen as uncivil if you make an error of judgement about another user's motives. Although this section suggests that you apologize, do not take that to mean your opinion is unimportant, it carries the same weight as theirs, and perhaps much more if you are civil and they are being uncivil (Don't tell them that though... seriously). Their incivility is no trump card in debates. A good way to continue to state your opinion while somebody is being intentionally confrontational is to not be affected and remain calm. Ask them to calm down, and cover the reasonable points they make. If they continue the unpleasantness, leave the conversation, especially if they initiated it. It is OK to tell them you would discuss the matter further if they were calm. However, stick to your word. If they can drag you back in once, they will try the same strategy again and again. Don't feed the trolls If the person has made a really controversial post, they are a possible troll so ignore them. If you reply you are feeding them, thereby letting them control you. See also, . Avoid laziness It is advisable that you do not link to or quote this policy in heated discussions. This is not a very good idea. Write your own way out of trouble, the personal touch goes along way to proving you are genuine.